I certainly did, its just that you don't read closely enough or choose not to.

Kim O'Hara wrote:My optimism is not naive. I don't believe everything is under control and a wave of the hand will fix all our problems. My optimism is purely pragmatic: I believe that if everyone does as much as they can we can ameliorate enough of the problems sufficiently that we can achieve a softer crash-landing - tens of thousands of deaths due to sea level rise, for instance, rather than tens of millions. I believe that if we sit on our hands and do nothing, we are neglecting our duty of compassion towards other sentient beings alive now and in the future. And I believe that anyone proclaiming doom-and-gloom scenarios as you, Huseng, Nemo and Thrasymachus are doing, is actively contributing to the outcome they are predicting, and adding to the suffering of themselves (if they live long enough) and others by doing so.

And my point is that your view is actually just a band aid that is not going to make any significant changes. In fact, I would venture further that your positions are actually going to make it worse - since it gives a false illusion that all you propose is really going to make a difference, and this will cause many thousands or millions of well-meaning people to spend all that effort on things that does not solve the root of the problems. So your assertions that your optimism is pragmatic is false - it is erroneous in that diverts energy and attention from actually looking and solving the root causes. In fact, it would not be far off the mark to say that your positions, though well-meaning, satisfies the adage that the "road to hell is paved with good intentions".

If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

pueraeternus wrote:I certainly did, its just that you don't read closely enough or choose not to.

And my point is that your view is actually just a band aid that is not going to make any significant changes. In fact, I would venture further that your positions are actually going to make it worse - since it gives a false illusion that all you propose is really going to make a difference, and this will cause many thousands or millions of well-meaning people to spend all that effort on things that does not solve the root of the problems. So your assertions that your optimism is pragmatic is false - it is erroneous in that diverts energy and attention from actually looking and solving the root causes. In fact, it would not be far off the mark to say that your positions, though well-meaning, satisfies the adage that the "road to hell is paved with good intentions".

That was an answer? Vague, general and totally unsupported, like all the rest of your posts - including this one? And with huge gaps where an answer would be too embarrassing? E.g.

peterpan wrote:Kim O'Hara wrote:..." but says, 'Hey, we can get out of this,' or 'It isn't really going to be all that bad," If there was something like that, can you find it for me while you're looking for my quarter-truths?"To me, your optimism is misguided.

I take it that is a "No"?

One of the few potentially useful things you've said is what I have bolded above. I don't agree but at least it suggests that you have a solution in mind. What would that be?

Kim O'Hara wrote:That was an answer? Vague, general and totally unsupported, like all the rest of your posts - including this one? And with huge gaps where an answer would be too embarrassing?

Vague to you perhaps, but not to the rest of us. And it is not unsupported - and please, stop casting aspersions on others' posts when your own are as easily criticized.

Kim O'Hara wrote:One of the few potentially useful things you've said is what I have bolded above. I don't agree but at least it suggests that you have a solution in mind. What would that be?

It took you that long to understand that's what we have been saying? A few of us have said this in so many different ways for the last few pages, but it seems not to register at all.

The solution is not easy - and will take tremendous transformation in current power structures that entrench the globe. I do not have a solution, since it is a most intricate situation, and may involve a great deal of violence. But at least if our conversation arrives at the genuine source of the problems, we can start somewhere valuable. To start at where you are is really going to make things worse, since it blinds people to true nature of the problem, and takes them into a tangent that is ultimately pointless.

If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

Kim O'Hara wrote:That was an answer? Vague, general and totally unsupported, like all the rest of your posts - including this one? And with huge gaps where an answer would be too embarrassing?

Vague to you perhaps, but not to the rest of us. And it is not unsupported - and please, stop casting aspersions on others' posts when your own are as easily criticized.

Vague and general: I asked you to identify anything I said which was inaccurate and you could have quoted any of my posts to really nail them down. Then I could defend them. Totally unsupported: No references whatever to any source you may be relying on. My posts are easily criticised, perhaps, but I do provide sources.

pueraeternus wrote:

Kim O'Hara wrote:One of the few potentially useful things you've said is what I have bolded above. I don't agree but at least it suggests that you have a solution in mind. What would that be?

It took you that long to understand that's what we have been saying? A few of us have said this in so many different ways for the last few pages, but it seems not to register at all.

A few of you have been dropping hints about radical solutions but I didn't want to believe you were serious.

pueraeternus wrote:The solution is not easy - and will take tremendous transformation in current power structures that entrench the globe. I do not have a solution, since it is a most intricate situation, and may involve a great deal of violence. But at least if our conversation arrives at the genuine source of the problems, we can start somewhere valuable.

Okay - spell it out. Then, if it's what I think it is, I will tell you what I think is wrong with it.Oh, and please provide sources if you have any.

Those three have all come up just in the lat couple of days, all just here in Australia. Similar things are happening globally.Just to reassure you that I'm not a totally starry-eyed optimist, I will also mention news from our just-concluded national physics conference in Sydney: a researcher there says a sea-level rise of 30cm in the next 30 years is now locked in. We should have started work earlier and worked harder.

Kim O'Hara wrote:Vague and general: I asked you to identify anything I said which was inaccurate and you could have quoted any of my posts to really nail them down. Then I could defend them. Totally unsupported: No references whatever to any source you may be relying on. My posts are easily criticised, perhaps, but I do provide sources.

I don't think anything we say is really going to change your mind, especially after all the sources that Huseng and the others have given, and yet you still insist on calling them "half/quarter truths". And no, I am not going to rehash them, since you can easily go back to the thread and examine them.

Your "sources" are not by any means of valid references, since many of us disagree with what your sources are saying with regards to the effectiveness to the overall green movement as it is right now. For me, this is one of the things in life where it is better to rely on one's judgment and assessment.

Look, it is ok to disagree, so let's just leave it at that.

Okay - spell it out. Then, if it's what I think it is, I will tell you what I think is wrong with it.

If only it were that easy as "spelling it out". There is no easy answer, but at least I am not deluding myself with illusions that piecemeal actions are going to make any difference to the big picture, besides making myself feel good about my eco-friendliness. Don't get me wrong, it is a great habit and wonderful mindfulness in being conscientious about not being wasteful and polluting, but it is not going to change the trajectory of the world's downhill slide. It will take something bigger, and drastic change in the realm of political, economic and cultural spheres.

If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

pueraeternus wrote:Look, it is ok to disagree, so let's just leave it at that.

It is perfectly okay to disagree over trivial matters of opinion but I am reluctant to do so over a factual matter which is, literally, life and death to a lot of people. Let's see clearly where we are, if we can.

pueraeternus wrote:

Kim O'Hara wrote:Vague and general: I asked you to identify anything I said which was inaccurate and you could have quoted any of my posts to really nail them down. Then I could defend them. Totally unsupported: No references whatever to any source you may be relying on. My posts are easily criticised, perhaps, but I do provide sources.

I don't think anything we say is really going to change your mind, especially after all the sources that Huseng and the others have given, and yet you still insist on calling them "half/quarter truths". And no, I am not going to rehash them, since you can easily go back to the thread and examine them.

Your "sources" are not by any means of valid references, since many of us disagree with what your sources are saying with regards to the effectiveness to the overall green movement as it is right now. For me, this is one of the things in life where it is better to rely on one's judgment and assessment.

Once again, you are vague and general. I asked you to identify anything I said which you think is wrong. I don't know whether you can't, you won't, or you merely mis-read my request. Unless or until you do, I am just going to assume you can't. Ditto for sources.

pueraeternus wrote:For me, this is one of the things in life where it is better to rely on one's judgment and assessment.

I will take that as meaning you can't supply any sources to back up your own position.

pueraeternus wrote:

Kim wrote:Okay - spell it [your solution] out. Then, if it's what I think it is, I will tell you what I think is wrong with it.

If only it were that easy as "spelling it out". There is no easy answer ... It will take something bigger, and drastic change in the realm of political, economic and cultural spheres.

Once again, I asked for specifics and you can't or won't provide them. So far as I can deduce from what you have said here, you envisage a world-wide armed revolt against capitalism, and I have two not-so-tiny arguments against that: (1) as Buddhists, we don't kill, and (2) the revolt would fail and the world would be worse off than before.

pueraeternus wrote: at least I am not deluding myself with illusions that piecemeal actions are going to make any difference to the big picture, besides making myself feel good about my eco-friendliness. Don't get me wrong, it is a great habit and wonderful mindfulness in being conscientious about not being wasteful and polluting, but it is not going to change the trajectory of the world's downhill slide.

Once again, I am not deluding myself. I know that my actions are tiny and the problems are huge. But I also know that two billion people thinking and acting my way will make a big difference for the better whereas two billion people thinking your way can only make things worse. To finish with a quote: "Be the change you want to see in the world."I'm doing it - as best I can. Join me?

Many here have post secondary science educations and some of us were full time environmentalists. I also lived off grid making my own power for years. Most North Americans have no ability to live like that. The technology is not there yet without a huge decrease in lifestyle and consumption. At this point with globalization even if Europe and North America went totally green it would only lengthen the time to ecological breakdown by at best two decades. China alone is building a coal plant a day. Power structures have mobilized that deliberately prevent helping the earth. They\go so far as to actively undermine social justice and participatory democracy. Without which the problems are truly insurmountable.

It is a very American ideal that ignorant opinions are of equal value as knowledgeable ones. Just because it makes you feel good does not mean it is true.

Nemo wrote:Many here have post secondary science educations and some of us were full time environmentalists. I also lived off grid making my own power for years. Most North Americans have no ability to live like that. The technology is not there yet without a huge decrease in lifestyle and consumption. At this point with globalization even if Europe and North America went totally green it would only lengthen the time to ecological breakdown by at best two decades. China alone is building a coal plant a day.Power structures have mobilized that deliberately prevent helping the earth. They\go so far as to actively undermine social justice and participatory democracy. Without which the problems are truly insurmountable.

It is a very American ideal that ignorant opinions are of equal value as knowledgeable ones. Just because it makes you feel good does not mean it is true.

Welcome back, Nemo

To respond to your second paragraph first, the problem with democracy has been noted before:

Winston Churchill wrote:The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

although he also said

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

Meanwhile,

Nemo wrote:Just because it makes you feel good does not mean it is true.

probably made you feel good as you said it but is true, which is an indication that

Kim wrote:Just because it makes you feel good does not mean it is false.

is also true.

As for your first paragraph, congratulations and thanks - and I do mean this - for your environmental work and your individual green lifestyle efforts. However, the rest of what you say doesn't convince me. The bits I have bolded are, I think, correct but they don't add up to an argument for doing nothing. And the bit that i have made red suggests to me that your thinking is unnecessarily simplistic. "Ecological breakdown" is not a discrete worldwide cataclysm like the earth being hit by an asteroid, but a cascade of large and small losses and disasters spread over dozens, if not hundreds, of years, depending on how you define it. The extinctions of the Dodo and the Great Auk might be seen in retrospect as early events in the Anthropocene extinction, and it could be argued that "Ecological breakdown" is incomplete until species diversity, worldwide, is (say) 5% of what it is now. That will take more than decades (and there would be no-one alive to measure it). And the fact that our ecological breakdown is (1) self-inflicted and (2) composed of tens of thousands of small losses means that (1) in principle we have the power to avert further losses and in some cases reverse losses, and (2) individuals and small groups have power to affect local outcomes - whether it is to reclaim wetlands or prevent a CSG well or feed cassowaries after a cyclone so the population survives until the rainforest regenerates (see http://qldreconstruction.org.au/case-studies/cassowaries-doing-well-post-yasi-but-care-continues)

Finally, something I put in front of Huseng:

Kim wrote:My optimism is not naive. I don't believe everything is under control and a wave of the hand will fix all our problems. My optimism is purely pragmatic: I believe that if everyone does as much as they can we can ameliorate enough of the problems sufficiently that we can achieve a softer crash-landing - tens of thousands of deaths due to sea level rise, for instance, rather than tens of millions. I believe that if we sit on our hands and do nothing, we are neglecting our duty of compassion towards other sentient beings alive now and in the future. And I believe that anyone proclaiming doom-and-gloom scenarios as you, peterpan, Nemo and Thrasymachus are doing, is actively contributing to the outcome they are predicting, and adding to the suffering of themselves (if they live long enough) and others by doing so.

Do you have any moral justification for the consequences of your position?If so, I would love to see it.

Kim O'Hara wrote:Once again, I am not deluding myself. I know that my actions are tiny and the problems are huge. But I also know that two billion people thinking and acting my way will make a big difference for the better whereas two billion people thinking your way can only make things worse. To finish with a quote: "Be the change you want to see in the world."I'm doing it - as best I can. Join me?

Once again, I think you still don't understand what a few of us have been saying, in that the root of the problems really stem from a much bigger picture, and the consumption itself (which what the green movement is addressing, in terms of recycling, using more energy effective tools, but nonetheless still consume energy and resources) is only a symptom.

There isn't really much point in giving you tons of quotes and sources, when you don't agree with us on these fundamentals.

If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

Kim O'Hara wrote:Once again, I am not deluding myself. I know that my actions are tiny and the problems are huge. But I also know that two billion people thinking and acting my way will make a big difference for the better whereas two billion people thinking your way can only make things worse. To finish with a quote: "Be the change you want to see in the world."I'm doing it - as best I can. Join me?

Once again, I think you still don't understand what a few of us have been saying, in that the root of the problems really stem from a much bigger picture, and the consumption itself (which what the green movement is addressing, in terms of recycling, using more energy effective tools, but nonetheless still consume energy and resources) is only a symptom.

There isn't really much point in giving you tons of quotes and sources, when you don't agree with us on these fundamentals.

Tell me clearly what you think the problem is and exactly what you intend to do about and I will (I promise) understand and respond. I asked you a while back and you were vague, so here http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=6973&start=240#p142506 I guessed ("So far as I can deduce from what you have said here, you envisage a world-wide armed revolt against capitalism") and you haven't even said whether my guess is correct. If you have any confidence whatever in your own ideas, why hide them? If you haven't, why put them forward at all?Kim

You have a very deluded sense of agency, Kim. That is YOUR problem. No one who disagrees with you believes they have the power to change the social structures needed which is why most of us are arguing the opposite of what you do. You on the other hand expect scientists and engineers to channel down through sorcery a panacea from the heavens. You accuse others, but your environmental stance is far worse in actuality. "Do nothing, but be mistakenly positive, the professionally certified experts who created these problems will fix it all," Kim O'hara on dharmawheel said so.

It is pointless for us to argue with you what we think is the solution. But obviously it involves what I said: to consume less, to change who we are as humans and how much we think we need to be happy in the developed world. The lived natural environment must become as sacred to us, as it was to the tribal societies we destroyed, and not something to combat against and pour asphalt all over, to erect unnecessary buildings upon only for artificial human made commercial purposes, but disconnected from real life processes. Such behavior must be considered an atrocity by future generations. We must cease to consider ourselves separate and discrete from our land base, because that is what gives us life and we must give back to it, and not take, take, take. Because one day with our parasitic, atrocity mentality, there will be nothing left to take for future generations. However, I, one solitary man in a state of 6+ million, in a country of 310 million, obviously have no social power or authority to make people change who they are. This is actually part of the issue as I highlighted earlier: where I live, there used to live smaller Native American tribal bands. In their much simpler social structures, lone individuals had far more social power than afforded in the fake democracies in modern Westernized societies, where we just pick candidates that business and other interests already funded and approved anyway and absolve ourselves thus of participation. I cannot even influence my own brother or mother toward any positive change. However, persionally I consume far less resources than the average American: I am vegan, I have not used a car since early September, from time to time I even dumpster dive for extra food and would get most my food like that if not for the problem of logistics(only one supermarket around my locale does not have a trash compactor). The average American will never do any of that, infact they are quite sick and demented mentally, so they think the exact opposite. The more they consume in nonsensical ways, the better they consider their station in life, and they imagine it makes them more happy.

So no matter what the technicians or researchers do or discover, in our social order based on murder, subjugation and dominance, nothing will change: from rich to poor, each individual will see to it that they consume as much of the resources of the planet as possible given their monetary resources, to let everyone else know how well off they are! Modern man is nothing but a parasite and a blight to all living beings, life sustaining processes. That can only continue to a point, the point of our self destruction.

Thrasymachus wrote:You have a very deluded sense of agency, Kim. That is YOUR problem. No one who disagrees with you believes they have the power to change the social structures needed which is why most of us are arguing the opposite of what you do. You on the other hand expect scientists and engineers to channel down through sorcery a panacea from the heavens. You accuse others, but your environmental stance is far worse in actuality. "Do nothing, but be mistakenly positive, the professionally certified experts who created these problems will fix it all," Kim O'hara on dharmawheel said so.

It is pointless for us to argue with you what we think is the solution. But obviously it involves what I said: to consume less, to change who we are as humans and how much we think we need to be happy in the developed world. The lived natural environment must become as sacred to us, as it was to the tribal societies we destroyed, and not something to combat against and pour asphalt all over, to erect unnecessary buildings upon only for artificial human made commercial purposes, but disconnected from real life processes. Such behavior must be considered an atrocity by future generations. We must cease to consider ourselves separate and discrete from our land base, because that is what gives us life and we must give back to it, and not take, take, take. Because one day with our parasitic, atrocity mentality, there will be nothing left to take for future generations. However, I, one solitary man in a state of 6+ million, in a country of 310 million, obviously have no social power or authority to make people change who they are. This is actually part of the issue as I highlighted earlier: where I live, there used to live smaller Native American tribal bands. In their much simpler social structures, lone individuals had far more social power than afforded in the fake democracies in modern Westernized societies, where we just pick candidates that business and other interests already funded and approved anyway and absolve ourselves thus of participation. I cannot even influence my own brother or mother toward any positive change. However, persionally I consume far less resources than the average American: I am vegan, I have not used a car since early September, from time to time I even dumpster dive for extra food and would get most my food like that if not for the problem of logistics(only one supermarket around my locale does not have a trash compactor). The average American will never do any of that, infact they are quite sick and demented mentally, so they think the exact opposite. The more they consume in nonsensical ways, the better they consider their station in life, and they imagine it makes them more happy.

So no matter what the technicians or researchers do or discover, in our social order based on murder, subjugation and dominance, nothing will change: from rich to poor, each individual will see to it that they consume as much of the resources of the planet as possible given their monetary resources, to let everyone else know how well off they are! Modern man is nothing but a parasite and a blight to all living beings, life sustaining processes. That can only continue to a point, the point of our self destruction.

But what are YOU actually going to DO?Nothing? You're letting the problems grow.Proclaiming doom, gloom and helplessness? You're helping the problems grow.Something like what I suggest? You're doing a (tiny, I know) bit to ameliorate the problems and you're leading by example.

Kim wrote:But what are YOU actually going to DO?Nothing? You're letting the problems grow.Proclaiming doom, gloom and helplessness? You're helping the problems grow.Something like what I suggest? You're doing a (tiny, I know) bit to ameliorate the problems and you're leading by example.

Kim wrote:Now: My optimism is not naive. I don't believe everything is under control and a wave of the hand will fix all our problems. My optimism is purely pragmatic: I believe that if everyone does as much as they can we can ameliorate enough of the problems sufficiently that we can achieve a softer crash-landing - tens of thousands of deaths due to sea level rise, for instance, rather than tens of millions. I believe that if we sit on our hands and do nothing, we are neglecting our duty of compassion towards other sentient beings alive now and in the future. And I believe that anyone proclaiming doom-and-gloom scenarios as you, peterpan, Nemo and Thrasymachus are doing, is actively contributing to the outcome they are predicting, and adding to the suffering of themselves (if they live long enough) and others by doing so.

Do you have any moral justification for the consequences of your position?If so, I would love to see it.

This are really important fundamental questions about how we, as individuals and as Buddhists, act in the world in the light of our knowledge of the world. Please don't keep avoiding them. Keep your answers short and simple so that you know what you mean and your readers know what you mean.

We are really not "do nothing", we are just not succumbing to your particular delusion of what constitutes effective action. Your hankering of answers from your particular choice of sources are just confirmation bias, so quit proselytizing and accusing us of all sorts of things.

Personally, I am still searching for an effective mode of action that will have a real chance of change. I can't share much more beyond this point. But please stop asking us to prove our point to you, since after so many pages, you still don't accept what we have said so far.

If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

Thrasymachus wrote:You have a very deluded sense of agency, Kim. That is YOUR problem. No one who disagrees with you believes they have the power to change the social structures needed which is why most of us are arguing the opposite of what you do. You on the other hand expect scientists and engineers to channel down through sorcery a panacea from the heavens. You accuse others, but your environmental stance is far worse in actuality. "Do nothing, but be mistakenly positive, the professionally certified experts who created these problems will fix it all," Kim O'hara on dharmawheel said so.

It is pointless for us to argue with you what we think is the solution.

If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

We are really not "do nothing", we are just not succumbing to your particular delusion of what constitutes effective action. Your hankering of answers from your particular choice of sources are just confirmation bias, so quit proselytizing and accusing us of all sorts of things.

Personally, I am still searching for an effective mode of action that will have a real chance of change. I can't share much more beyond this point. But please stop asking us to prove our point to you, since after so many pages, you still don't accept what we have said so far.

peterpan,This is getting quite tedious. You say this thread is 13 pages long, but in reality it has been about 6 pages plus repetitions. I ask a question, you fail to answer it. I ask for clarification, you fail to provide it. I ask for sources, you fail to provide them. And every time you post, you say I am wrong and closed-minded, but you can't present any evidence that I am wrong and I am certainly not going to change my mind without good evidence, so (yep) my mind stays closed. Deadlock? Impasse? Merry-go-round?

Kim O'Hara wrote:My optimism is purely pragmatic: I believe that if everyone does as much as they can we can ameliorate enough of the problems sufficiently that we can achieve a softer crash-landing - tens of thousands of deaths due to sea level rise, for instance, rather than tens of millions.

What I suspect we can all agree on, based on your above comment, is that, if the world maintains a "business as usual" course of action, we are headed for a cliff. A good planner will look at different scenarios and attempt to estimate probabilities of their likelihood. So, I'd like to ask a question of you (and anyone else who wishes to answer).

Given what you know about the state of the world today, what do you think the likelihood is for a continued "business as usual" scenario until it is too late to avoid a catastrophe? Here is a qualitative probability scale.

Personally, I choose A. From what I can tell, we are trying to turn a huge boat headed for a water fall, but we have started turning too late. Does that mean I shouldn't do what I can? Of course not. I'll throw my tormas at the approaching demon. (Echoing back to a previous post

All things are unworthy of clinging to (sabbe dhammā nâla abhinivesāyā). --Shakyamuni BuddhaWanting to grasp the ungraspable, you exhaust yourself in vain. --Gendun Rinpoche